Thread: [GD-Design] demo vs complete game
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design
|
From: <cas...@ya...> - 2003-08-20 14:24:19
|
Hi, I'm finishing a small game that I've been working on, that I'm planing to sell online, and I'm wondering which should be the differences between the demo and the registered game. For example here a few ideas: - Offering new features: new levels, and new options (fullscreen, highscores, etc). - Displaying nag screens, and reminders. - Limiting the play count. I would like to hear other ideas and to know which of those techniques are more effective in order to sell a game. Thanks in advance, -- Ignacio Castaño cas...@ya... |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-08-20 15:10:39
|
> - Offering new features: new levels, and new options (fullscreen, > highscores, etc) Additional content is always a good thing. I would be leery of making fullscreen a registered-only version, since it affects satisfaction of the demo version. Highscores are similar in that respect. > Displaying nag screens, and reminders Yes, but not to the degree such that the game is no longer enjoyable. Nag them when they're anxious but not actively trying to play the game, e.g. during startup, exit, highscores, in between levels, etc. > Limiting the play count. Yes. There is an art to this however -- set the count too low, and they may not get addicted to it enough. Set the count too high, and they may play it out and get bored before it kicks in. The general #s I've used are 10-20 sessions. Also, limit the number of games they can play during a session, e.g. 4 games and then it quits (with a nag screen). Many players will bypass the play count limit by never shutting down the game. > I would like to hear other ideas and to know which of those > techniques are more effective in order to sell a game. It depends on the type of game. Brian |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-08-25 18:18:13
|
> > - Offering new features: new levels, and new options (fullscreen, > > highscores, etc) > Additional content is always a good thing. I would be leery of making > fullscreen a registered-only version, since it affects satisfaction of > the demo version. Highscores are similar in that respect. I'd agree that full screen must be in the demo. However, hi-scores, you could leave out. Or rather, you could make it so that the demo version doesn't save anything, and completely resets when you quit the application. > If they only play the demo once, they weren't going to buy the full game anyway. But > if they play the game a _second_ time... then it's worth telling them about > the cool things in the full version. I believe this is a good general principle. If you want to play it a second time (as in, a second session, not a second go), you should probably buy it. The first time is free. Cheers, Phil |
|
From: <ma...@ch...> - 2003-08-25 20:31:42
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 phi...@pl... wrote:
> anyway. But
> > if they play the game a _second_ time... then it's worth telling them
> about
> > the cool things in the full version.
>
> I believe this is a good general principle. If you want to play it a second
> time (as in, a second session, not a second go), you should probably buy
> it.
>
> The first time is free.
That way, you can never show the game to a friend that is on visit though.
People will delete the game instead. Thats a visibility potential you
loose there.
Mads
--
Mads Bondo Dydensborg. ma...@ch...
Being comfortable with your beliefs is like being comfortable with
syphilis. Belief is a sort of disease that comes from the ego's need to
protect itself from reality.
- /. comment on 2002.05.01
|
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-08-26 00:08:05
|
> > I believe this is a good general principle. If you want to play it a second > > time (as in, a second session, not a second go), you should probably buy > > it. > > > > The first time is free. > That way, you can never show the game to a friend that is on visit though. > People will delete the game instead. Thats a visibility potential you > loose there. Nah, I'm not saying you can only play it once, that would be fairly dumb. What I'm actually proposing is that the demo doesn't store any information between sessions. No settings, preferences, hi-score tables, save games, progress, stats, or even a flag to say you've played it before. On quitting the session, you should show an easily quittable slideshow of features in the full version, and a clickable link to a website where you can buy it. Ideally it should be packaged as a single file that can be run from anywhere. If you need to unpack data, do it to memory, not the disk. If you do insist on crapping all over the users hard drive, then your uninstall routine bloody well better work. The single file encourages secondary distribution. If your friend comes over, plays the demo, and likes it, you always have the distribution file to copy, because it is the game. Or you can mail it to him, or whatever. 1: Do not piss off potential customers. 2: Make it easy for them to give you money. 3: Your game should be the best advertisment for your game. I'd also reccomend using something like PayPal. Their interface is scarily easy to use from a customers perspective. I've stopped halfway through buying cheap stuff just because I had to type in my address, and CC number. Cheers, Phil PS So yes, the second and subsequent times are still as free as the first one, but you have to do all of the setup and config work again. You sort of expect to do that the first time, so the I guess the first time is still effectively cheaper. |
|
From: Ben H. <cr...@ca...> - 2003-08-26 10:37:44
|
>PS So yes, the second and subsequent times are still as free as= the first >one, but you have to do all of the setup and config work again.= You sort of >expect to do that the first time, so the I guess the first time= is still >effectively cheaper. Ugh, no. Speaking from a user perspective, if a game did that to= me on the demo, I'd decide a sadist like that didn't deserve my= money :P This is going to be a personal taste issue in the end, I suspect,= but any drastic limits on a demo put me off very quickly. It= gives me the impression the developers don't deem me "worthy" to= handle their game unless I pay them money...I know that seems= melodramatic, but I hopefully it makes my point. Ideally, a demo should be a good game in its own right, A short= game, devoid of some small niceties (like hi-scores, perhaps= save games, depending on the game), but a "proper" game= nonetheless. [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ] |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2003-08-26 15:04:46
|
one game demo in particular that has struck me as an example of this type of feature limitation is the Midnight Club 2 demo (very cool). The demo has a number of cars & types of races etc that you can play, but the demo doesn't save any info you set while playing. if you want to tweak your in-game settings, change the color of your car, and other options (whether you want music playing or not, controls etc), you CAN, but the demo doesn't save it once you quit. as well, the demo limits you to a set number of powerups you can achieve (nitro in this case). i can see this being a major motivation for buying the full game. actually most of the suggestions that have been brought up here were demonstrated in this demo - having non-skippable intro cinematics, limiting what the game saves between sessions, etc...but the demo still gives the player access to every major feature in the game - online play, different types of races, etc but only gives the player, effectively ONE of each type of gameplay style to sample - if you finish the one race & win, that's it, you don't pregress, etc... not to mention the game itself IS the biggest draw to wanting to buy the game. no annoying nag's, no blasting the user with 15 splashscreens on exiting the game, etc... hasn't stopped me from playing the demo nonstop for a week, and i likely WILL buy the complete game as a result (need more nitro for my stupid car if i'm gonna win these races ;P ) anyways mike w www.gekidodesigns.com Ben Hawes wrote: >>PS So yes, the second and subsequent times are still as free as the first >>one, but you have to do all of the setup and config work again. You sort of >>expect to do that the first time, so the I guess the first time is still >>effectively cheaper. >> >> > >Ugh, no. Speaking from a user perspective, if a game did that to me on the demo, I'd decide a sadist like that didn't deserve my money :P >This is going to be a personal taste issue in the end, I suspect, but any drastic limits on a demo put me off very quickly. It gives me the impression the developers don't deem me "worthy" to handle their game unless I pay them money...I know that seems melodramatic, but I hopefully it makes my point. > >Ideally, a demo should be a good game in its own right, A short game, devoid of some small niceties (like hi-scores, perhaps save games, depending on the game), but a "proper" game nonetheless. > >[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ] > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware >With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. >WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines >at the same time. Free trial click here:http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/358/0 >_______________________________________________ >Gamedevlists-design mailing list >Gam...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design >Archives: >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 > > > > |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-12-24 22:05:34
|
After talking to some friends about different games and their respective designs, I realized something that is obvious in hindsight -- game speed controls difficulty almost exclusively, at least in action games. This means fighting games, shooters, platformers, you name it. The slower the game is, the easier it is. In fact, this is so obvious that several games have used slow-mo as a power up -- Max Payne 1/2, PoP, and Viewtiful Joe. And yet games today still insist on using the most idiotic variables to control difficulty. From the immensely stupid "number of saves" of Hitman 2, to the standard fare like "enemy damage", "hitpoints", "health and ammo availability", they never just adjust the speed of the game to match the response/reaction capabilities of a typical player. And that's really what separates great action players from mediocre ones, their recognition, decision making and response. The one game that could be improved the most with this is Madden 2004. Instead of just affecting the speed of the game by, say, -40%, -25% and 0%, and keeping everything else constant, they tweak a bunch of variables that make it tough for a Rookie player to advance to All-Pro, because the crutches they had on Rookie disappear. In fact, in the NFL it's even an adage that the difference between an experienced player and a rookie is that "the game slows down" for the experienced player. This is also true of full contact sparring -- experienced fighters "see" the fight at a much slower rate than someone who isn't used to fighting. Would Soul Calibur be more approachable if there was a novice setting that simply moved 25% slower? I would argue "hell yes". Obviously there are "fun factor" issues to consider, like obviously don't make it slow ALL the time, but the general notion is there. -Hook |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-12-27 02:14:24
|
I just did a slightly more cohesive write up on this, in case anyone is interested: http://bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/SpeedKills.html |
|
From: Hakan Y. <hak...@3t...> - 2003-12-27 14:11:03
|
I have read the document you wrote. I have some points those I dont agre with you: You say" I was talking to my friend Rob Trickey about game design, and he made the comment that "games just need a speed slider". And, by golly, he's right, and thinking about his comment made me realize that speed is the fundamental parameter that makes an action game easy or hard." I totally disagree. Good action games are fast paced games. But speed isnt the fundamental parameter of this games. In all sort of games desicion making and interaction level is the key element. Yes in action games you have to decide,act/react fast. But increasing the speed to make the game harder is just make the player to think he's being cheated. He'll see the same kind of events and problems becoming just faster. He"ll say "Hey i did this before, I have to do this just faster". I think (an examle) the player shoud make desicion in between 1-2 seconds. This 1-2 seconds shouldnt change for the whole game. Oponent style, intelligence, equipment, event types etc should change. You say: "The difference between a skilled player and an unskilled one is the delay from confrontation to reaction -- in other words, their speed of response." I disagree. Actually I agree the first sentence. But I dont think "their spped of response" make them fully skilled. In quake 3 arena you sould listen the sounds, know the map, experience the possibilities, experience the events, and at last you should have aiming and jumping skills. I know some players, their aiming and jumping skills are very good, But they play mindlessly, players can increase their aiming and jumoping skills in quake 3 arena but these dont make them good players. I have played q3 in nightmare mode 3-5 days ago. Computers shoots very fast and its moves better than me. But it moves precditably and stupid. I know where he is going or doing, I know he will come from that door, I can hear its voice, So i react and kill him before he get out of the door. So does the spped of my aiming and jumping/moving make me kill the bot or my desicion making, knowledge of the map and game? If you increase the speed of the bots in quake 3 more the game will be unplayable. Because when i see the bot I am dead, so i started to play the game by hiding all the time. Again designers make the NPC's more intelligent to make the game harder. You say: " we're stuck with health and ammo restrictions and limited enemy spawn points." No, we're not resrtricted to them. Todays games are lack of artificial intelligence. The enemey doesnt have the sense of real opponent. Consider quake 3. Suppose that I am playing quake 3 areana with you. I am a good player and you're a bettter player than me. What makes you a better opponent isnt the speed of your character or rate of fire. What makes you better is your desicion making and playing skills(you make better rocket jumps, good timing, good aiming vs). The only thing here related to speed may be your aiming. You may aim faster than me. Take these to single player mode. Computer should think better, so react better. It must react like a human. Designers should make the computer more intelligent to make the game harder an challenging. You say: " In many cases, they alter the rules enough that the game itself changes nature between difficulty levels -- instead of becoming harder, the game becomes harder and different." You're right. In some games when you change the difficulty level it becomes a different game. But is it a bad thing,if the game is still playable and enjoyable? You say: "An exemplar of this is Hitman 2, where difficulty is adjusted by limiting the number of saves!" I agree. Limiting the number of saves isnt related to difficulty. Its another problem of game design. Its more like cheating to me. Designers shouldnt use the save game count to make the game harder. You say: "And there is an element of truth to that, but altering many variables at once is generally considered more dangerous than changing only a few. It's easier to balance and test a system with fewer parameters." Its lazy design and its very limited, not creative. You say: The ironic thing is that several games today have included speed-modification as a way to make the game easier, but in the form of power ups. Max Payne's "bullet-time" feature slows down the action, which in turn makes it much easier for the player to analyze his surroundings and take appropriate action in a deliberate, unhurried way. Prince of Persia and Viewtiful Joe also includes the ability to slow down the action as power ups. I agree. Its a good idea but makes the game easier. It doesnt have side effects except its lessening when used. Maybe in harder difficulty levels this bullet timing ability could be removed(Maybe they did this I dont know yet. I just played max payne 1-2 but i didnt played harder difficulty levels) You say: "Of course, there is no magic bullet, so there are some complaints and weaknesses. A lot of people equate speed with excitement, but I don't believe that there is as much of a correlation as you'd expect. Consider the original Quake, where the player runs at a rate probably twice that of a character in Call of Duty -- yet I doubt anyone would argue that Call of Duty is less exciting than Quake. Speed definitely contributes a certain degree of base elemental adrenaline to an action game, but I don't think it is the sole determining factor." I totally agree here and the following paragraph Most of my answers will be like these. I think i give the idea of aht i think. My result is changing the speed will not make a game harder or easier most of the time(Maybe in a few games it can make). Designers should wealth their games, with challenging NPCs and events. We need more intelligent NPCs, We need to give the players alternatives to go over. We need to make playable, interacting environments. etc. After these are done you can make a fast paced or slow paced game, an action or strategy game. Speed wont be a challenging factor in games. Making of desicions in a short time will be hard, not in shorter and shorter times. Beating one intelligent monster will be hard and exciting but not 10 fast movoing stupid monster. Action is exciting but faster action is just overwhelming. Games should be deepened even action games. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [GD-Design] Speed kills I just did a slightly more cohesive write up on this, in case anyone is interested: http://bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/SpeedKills.html ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=ick _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
|
From: Hakan Y. <hak...@3t...> - 2003-12-27 14:13:07
|
I have read the document you wrote. I have some points those I dont agre with you: You say" I was talking to my friend Rob Trickey about game design, and he made the comment that "games just need a speed slider". And, by golly, he's right, and thinking about his comment made me realize that speed is the fundamental parameter that makes an action game easy or hard." I totally disagree. Good action games are fast paced games. But speed isnt the fundamental parameter of this games. In all sort of games desicion making and interaction level is the key element. Yes in action games you have to decide,act/react fast. But increasing the speed to make the game harder is just make the player to think he's being cheated. He'll see the same kind of events and problems becoming just faster. He"ll say "Hey i did this before, I have to do this just faster". I think (an examle) the player shoud make desicion in between 1-2 seconds. This 1-2 seconds shouldnt change for the whole game. Oponent style, intelligence, equipment, event types etc should change. You say: "The difference between a skilled player and an unskilled one is the delay from confrontation to reaction -- in other words, their speed of response." I disagree. Actually I agree the first sentence. But I dont think "their spped of response" make them fully skilled. In quake 3 arena you sould listen the sounds, know the map, experience the possibilities, experience the events, and at last you should have aiming and jumping skills. I know some players, their aiming and jumping skills are very good, But they play mindlessly, players can increase their aiming and jumoping skills in quake 3 arena but these dont make them good players. I have played q3 in nightmare mode 3-5 days ago. Computers shoots very fast and its moves better than me. But it moves precditably and stupid. I know where he is going or doing, I know he will come from that door, I can hear its voice, So i react and kill him before he get out of the door. So does the spped of my aiming and jumping/moving make me kill the bot or my desicion making, knowledge of the map and game? If you increase the speed of the bots in quake 3 more the game will be unplayable. Because when i see the bot I am dead, so i started to play the game by hiding all the time. Again designers make the NPC's more intelligent to make the game harder. You say: " we're stuck with health and ammo restrictions and limited enemy spawn points." No, we're not resrtricted to them. Todays games are lack of artificial intelligence. The enemey doesnt have the sense of real opponent. Consider quake 3. Suppose that I am playing quake 3 areana with you. I am a good player and you're a bettter player than me. What makes you a better opponent isnt the speed of your character or rate of fire. What makes you better is your desicion making and playing skills(you make better rocket jumps, good timing, good aiming vs). The only thing here related to speed may be your aiming. You may aim faster than me. Take these to single player mode. Computer should think better, so react better. It must react like a human. Designers should make the computer more intelligent to make the game harder an challenging. You say: " In many cases, they alter the rules enough that the game itself changes nature between difficulty levels -- instead of becoming harder, the game becomes harder and different." You're right. In some games when you change the difficulty level it becomes a different game. But is it a bad thing,if the game is still playable and enjoyable? You say: "An exemplar of this is Hitman 2, where difficulty is adjusted by limiting the number of saves!" I agree. Limiting the number of saves isnt related to difficulty. Its another problem of game design. Its more like cheating to me. Designers shouldnt use the save game count to make the game harder. You say: "And there is an element of truth to that, but altering many variables at once is generally considered more dangerous than changing only a few. It's easier to balance and test a system with fewer parameters." Its lazy design and its very limited, not creative. You say: The ironic thing is that several games today have included speed-modification as a way to make the game easier, but in the form of power ups. Max Payne's "bullet-time" feature slows down the action, which in turn makes it much easier for the player to analyze his surroundings and take appropriate action in a deliberate, unhurried way. Prince of Persia and Viewtiful Joe also includes the ability to slow down the action as power ups. I agree. Its a good idea but makes the game easier. It doesnt have side effects except its lessening when used. Maybe in harder difficulty levels this bullet timing ability could be removed(Maybe they did this I dont know yet. I just played max payne 1-2 but i didnt played harder difficulty levels) You say: "Of course, there is no magic bullet, so there are some complaints and weaknesses. A lot of people equate speed with excitement, but I don't believe that there is as much of a correlation as you'd expect. Consider the original Quake, where the player runs at a rate probably twice that of a character in Call of Duty -- yet I doubt anyone would argue that Call of Duty is less exciting than Quake. Speed definitely contributes a certain degree of base elemental adrenaline to an action game, but I don't think it is the sole determining factor." I totally agree here and the following paragraph Most of my answers will be like these. I think i give the idea of aht i think. My result is changing the speed will not make a game harder or easier most of the time(Maybe in a few games it can make). Designers should wealth their games, with challenging NPCs and events. We need more intelligent NPCs, We need to give the players alternatives to go over. We need to make playable, interacting environments. etc. After these are done you can make a fast paced or slow paced game, an action or strategy game. Speed wont be a challenging factor in games. Making of desicions in a short time will be hard, not in shorter and shorter times. Beating one intelligent monster will be hard and exciting but not 10 fast movoing stupid monster. Action is exciting but faster action is just overwhelming. Games should be deepened even action games. Hakan Yuksel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [GD-Design] Speed kills I just did a slightly more cohesive write up on this, in case anyone is interested: http://bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/SpeedKills.html ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=ick _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-12-27 16:35:32
|
Hakan, > My result is changing the speed will not make a game harder or > easier most of the time(Maybe in a few games it can make). But that's not what your post was really saying. You're arguing that games can be improved in other areas to make them more challenging, which I agree with. You also assert that even action games have strategic elements to them which matter as much as reflexes, which I also agree with. But you didn't address my fundamental point, which is that when reflexes do matter, controlling the game's overall speed can have a drastic effect on difficulty. If you have five seconds to aim and fire, you will almost always be more successful than if you have 0.2 seconds. If you can run towards the edge of a platform but it feels like you're walking, the odds of missing that jump are greatly reduced. If you can see that barrier on the race track with 3 seconds to react instead of 0.3, you will almost definitely avoid it. If an enemy's punch takes 3 seconds to land instead of 0.1 seconds, you should definitely block or dodge it. Obviously these situations are not the ONLY factors, but speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty of play in games, and yet it's widely ignored except as the occasional powerup. Brian |
|
From: Hakan Y. <hak...@3t...> - 2003-12-27 19:14:29
|
"But you didn't address my fundamental point, which is that when reflexes do matter, controlling the game's overall speed can have a drastic effect on difficulty." Speed may be used in some games to make it easier or harder. But I dont think its a key factor and it shouldnt be used as a key factor. It doesnt add much to the game. It may make the game difficult or meaningless to play furter, not challenging. Increasing the speed of some events of reflex based games may make the game challenging, but there is a very limited usage and limited effect. I think it doesnt have a drastic effect as you say. .............(your examples) Of course it will be harder to react in shorter times but it will be boring to play. Because theres nothing new. You just became faster. "Obviously these situations are not the ONLY factors, but speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty of play in games, and yet it's widely ignored except as the occasional powerup." I disagree that "speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty", because other aspects are much more important than the speed(they are much more meaninful). But I agree that its not used widely. Some action games may use speed parameter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Hakan Yuksel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [GD-Design] Speed kills Hakan, > My result is changing the speed will not make a game harder or > easier most of the time(Maybe in a few games it can make). But that's not what your post was really saying. You're arguing that games can be improved in other areas to make them more challenging, which I agree with. You also assert that even action games have strategic elements to them which matter as much as reflexes, which I also agree with. But you didn't address my fundamental point, which is that when reflexes do matter, controlling the game's overall speed can have a drastic effect on difficulty. If you have five seconds to aim and fire, you will almost always be more successful than if you have 0.2 seconds. If you can run towards the edge of a platform but it feels like you're walking, the odds of missing that jump are greatly reduced. If you can see that barrier on the race track with 3 seconds to react instead of 0.3, you will almost definitely avoid it. If an enemy's punch takes 3 seconds to land instead of 0.1 seconds, you should definitely block or dodge it. Obviously these situations are not the ONLY factors, but speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty of play in games, and yet it's widely ignored except as the occasional powerup. Brian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=ick _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
|
From: Hakan Y. <hak...@3t...> - 2003-12-27 23:55:08
|
"But you didn't address my fundamental point, which is that when reflexes do matter, controlling the game's overall speed can have a drastic effect on difficulty." Speed may be used in some games to make it easier or harder. But I dont think its a key factor and it shouldnt be used as a key factor. It doesnt add much to the game. It may make the game difficult or meaningless to play furter, not challenging. Increasing the speed of some events of reflex based games may make the game challenging, but there is a very limited usage and limited effect. I think it doesnt have a drastic effect as you say. .............(your examples) Of course it will be harder to react in shorter times but it will be boring to play. Because theres nothing new. You just became faster. "Obviously these situations are not the ONLY factors, but speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty of play in games, and yet it's widely ignored except as the occasional powerup." I disagree that "speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty", because other aspects are much more important than the speed(they are much more meaninful). But I agree that its not used widely. Some action games may use speed parameter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hakan Yuksel (There is a problem with my mail server.So I send this mail again. I am sory if you receive again) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [GD-Design] Speed kills Hakan, > My result is changing the speed will not make a game harder or > easier most of the time(Maybe in a few games it can make). But that's not what your post was really saying. You're arguing that games can be improved in other areas to make them more challenging, which I agree with. You also assert that even action games have strategic elements to them which matter as much as reflexes, which I also agree with. But you didn't address my fundamental point, which is that when reflexes do matter, controlling the game's overall speed can have a drastic effect on difficulty. If you have five seconds to aim and fire, you will almost always be more successful than if you have 0.2 seconds. If you can run towards the edge of a platform but it feels like you're walking, the odds of missing that jump are greatly reduced. If you can see that barrier on the race track with 3 seconds to react instead of 0.3, you will almost definitely avoid it. If an enemy's punch takes 3 seconds to land instead of 0.1 seconds, you should definitely block or dodge it. Obviously these situations are not the ONLY factors, but speed is a fundamental control on the difficulty of play in games, and yet it's widely ignored except as the occasional powerup. Brian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=ick _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X